Welcome to the best KC Chiefs site on the internet. You can view any post as a visitor, but you are required to register before you can post. Click the register link above, it only takes 30 seconds to start chatting with Chiefs fans from all over the world! Enjoy your stay!

The ONLY political and religious thread allowed on Chiefscrowd

0

Clinton, McCain emerge as comeback winners in New Hampshire primary

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Clinton pulled off an unexpected narrow victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday, dramatically rescuing her bid for the White House in a tense battle with Barack Obama.
Clinton, who's fighting to become the first woman in the Oval Office, mounted a surprisingly strong showing after bracing for a second defeat following her devastating third-place showing in Iowa.

Republican John McCain also nabbed a major comeback victory, putting him solidly back in his party's nomination race.
While Obama, vying to make history as the first black U.S. president, scored big among independents and voters between 18 and 24, Clinton attracted lower-income voters and seniors and did best among voters citing the economy as their top concern.
But a big factor for Clinton was women voters, who had gone over to Obama in large numbers in Iowa. Nearly half in New Hampshire were once again supporting her, while Obama got only a third.

I guess, if you consider preventing a person from existing to be "healthcare." I have no problem, personally, with contraception. There are a lot of people that I would rather they don't reproduce! I don't really think it is a basic human right, but if the government wants to force insurance companies to provide it, then so be it. But they can't force religious organizations who self ensure to provide it--and ultimately they didn't.

Question: Does pregnancy cause any health problems for women?

Or is there no other effect to pregnancy than the creation of a human being?

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

The wall is too expensive, but you have no problem paying billions of dollars for the education, healthcare and food stamps of illegal immigrants who come here. How much is that costing the country? Most of these people can't legally get jobs so they are paid "under the table" for less than minimum wage, keeping them poor and allowing them to not pay any income taxes.

Those are the only two solutions?

Either pay for them, or pay to fight them? I would prefer not to go to war (the type of border defense required is a war on our border.) and just help the people out, but..............

Since we are responsible for the illegal immigration situation on both ends, how about if try thinking a little bit, instead of acting like "there's just no other way"?

First legalize it!

The drug cartels will go to s**t when I am stealing all their business by farming with the amazingly rich soil in Illinois. That will remove the power that is making these peoples' home nations unlivable for so many.

It is not an overnight solution. But it is vastly superior to the old "throw my arms in the air" bit, or the "war with all our neighbors" bit.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

I haven't checked these figures yet, so I don't know how accurate they are, but if they are anywhere close to correct, then illegal immigration is costing us far more that a wall/fence ever would!

Keep the Facebook tags on Facebook then.

And the wall would still cost eternally more, as it will not work, because they have tractors in Mexico.

Tractors remove walls.
Planes fly over walls.
Boats go around walls.

And walls to segregate The USA from our closest neighbors is just ridiculous.

Not to mention, they will keep coming, so long as we are s***ting all over their countries with our ridiculous "War on Drugs AKA Americans". So you will keep funding this losing war, start a new one, that can't be won, keep feeding the starving immigrants, watch as your people die from "moonshine pot", and whatever else they can use to get what they want, which means extra medical care for them.

It's not effective because we won't secure our borders and they keep coming back!

Ok, let's not use our heads, keep fighting against Anericans' god given right to choose what to consume, and build a 2,000 (+) mile fortress on the southern border.....

Americans will just get supplied from the north.

Big win there.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

I agree because border patrol agents have to be paid and there aren't enough of them to make a difference. A fence (which already exists along parts of the border) would be much cheaper in the long run becuase it only has to be paid for once and then it's free (other than routine maintenance).

Wow! We agree again! The Drug cartels are funded by Americans because it is too easy for them to get into the country and exchange drugs for money. We need stiffer penalties and better enforcement of existing laws for companies that hire without proper documentation and we need to stop paying for the education and public housing of people who come here illegally.

Continued ...

Put a huge moat, with Alligators. The Alligators will be sold to us on the cheap when the desperate people eat them and bring their hides over the border.

Use bricks, big piles of rubble are a real deterrent.

Use an electric fence, because that would be cheap, and they don't have rubber gloves in Mexico.

You choose which form of big government you want to use to avoid the starving victims of our war against Americans' choice, and I will put two seconds into why it will be a complete failure.

Prohibition didn't work then. It just made criminals of everyday people, and created a huge crime syndicate to supply the demand of the people of The USA.

Still happening.

This "Wall" idea reminds me of when they chose to build an outdoor mall in central Illinois. Yeah. That Christmas crowd hates being able to shop indoors during December.

As soon as you hear "outdoor mall", in central Illinois, how does any thought override "Mall...Christmas...cold.."?

And when you say "2,000 mile long wall on our southern border" what must you do to bat away the obvious, "walls fall down....Northern border... boats... planes..."?

Page 6!
I don't hold the previous administration blameless for getting us into this mess, but I also blame the consumer, OPEC and many other factors.

For the record Democrats controlled the House and Senate when Carter was in office and that led to a major recession. Under Reagan, dems still controlled the House but reps took control of the Senate and the economy rebounded nicely.

Again.......

Reagan had the tool of tax cutting at his disposal. The top rate had been over 70% for almost fifty years, and the debt issue was out of sight, out of mind.

All he did was double the national debt in his first term, then doubled that in his second term.

Always quick results from cutting taxes.

But the long term effect is out of control debt.

And now, with the debt nearing the flash point, and the taxes at the the far low end of the scale, that cheap and easy ploy is no longer available.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

[Dems took control of both houses in the '86 election, but supported Reagan's policies because they were working.
We did have a minor recession under George H. W Bush while the democrats were in power, but it didn't last long.

In 1992, reps took back control of both Houses except for Nov, 2022 to Nov, 2004 when Dems had a 2 vote majority in the Senate and the economy continued to hum.

Dems took back control both houses in Nov, 2006. And when did the current recession begin?

You want to blame previous administrations for the present economy. Fine. How far do you want to go back? Every time democrats have taken control of congress the economy has taken a nosedive and it always recovers under republican power. Coincidence?

I am tired of blaming Hitler for the attempted genocide of Jews too. But it is never not going to be his fault.

How far back do I want to go? I went back almost 100 years.

And Republicans have had 10 straight years of power twice, both ended in economic collapses that make Carter's extreme changes look like nothing at all.

Meanwhile, Democrats had an almost fifty year run with nearly no Republican interference, and The USA succeeded beyond anybody's wildest dreams.

Republican policies are good for the economy in the short term, and then an economic catastrophe.

Democrat policies built our middle class, and are strong over the long haul, like your dream era, the '50's.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

Democrats have controlled the Senate for almost 6 years and the oval office for almost 4 years, now. Republicans just took control of the house a year and a half ago, because democrats are not getting the job done. They couldn't get control of the Senate because only 1/3 of the seats were up for re-election. Hopefully republicans will take control in November and we can get the country moving again.

But I'm sure if that happens you will give the democrats who were voted out, all the credit, right?

Depending what they would do with it.

If they resort to the usual, with some quick fixes that lead to complete failure, yeah, that's all theirs... yet again

If they figure out that they can't spend more than Democrats, while taking in as little as possible, then I will get off their backs.

But your support for the trillion dollar wall for 25% of our border, and continued wasted spending on the War on Drugs, I expect double the spending, and less and less revenue.

I can't see how anybody thinks that the goal can be anything other then complete decimation of The USA, with that kind of thinking.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

Oh, now you want to go there!? Alright, let's do it. I was never a "birther." I just took it for granted that Obama was born in Hawaii, but then he admitted he was born in Kenya and his wife, Michelle, confirmed it!

Maybe he just 'forgot' where he was born. Or maybe they both 'misspoke.' or maybe they were lying.

You are aware that Obama was kidding, as shown by the rest of that speech...

and Michelle calling Kenya his home country was an obvious reference to his ancestry.

NAH!!!!! You didn't know that. You believe!!

He even showed a video tape of his birth in the video I brought.....

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

I'm very sorry that you lost a friend in Iraq. He is truly one of America's heroes.

But he had the support of the American people because he was doing the right thing based on the information he had. In retrospect, it might not have worked out but you can't blame him for doing what you and all of congress and most of the American people wanted him to do.

Yes it does. it falls under defending us from foreign powers.

That is not defense, it is offense.

This is a football forum, you should know the difference.

Attacking a nation with no ability to launch an attack here, regardless of chemical weapons, is not defense.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

What profit? The wars have cost us a great deal. Irag is not paying us what it costs us to rebuild their country.

Oh.... Never heard of Halliburton?

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

I don't believe 'revenge' was a motive for going into Iraq. I think 911 was, but I won't deny that he may have saw an added benefit of finishing the job his father started. We should have taken Saddam Hussein out when we liberated Kuwait. That was a mistake.

Saddam defied us at every turn, lied repeatedly and now under direct threat of attack we are supposed to trust him. Why would you believe that someone who repeatedly lied to us and defied us could suddenly be trusted? That would have been very foolish, indeed.

I don't care how much he lied. He was incapable of being a threat to The USA. We attacked, even after he agreed to our terms.

And 9-11 was not a reasonable motive for starting a war in Iraq. Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.... maybe. Iraq, no.

Because jury's are very sympathetic to the victims of malpractice (as they should be) they often award ridiculous sums of money to them. I'm all in favor of the victim being fairly compensated but someone who would have earned maybe 100 to 200,000 dollars in his remaining "productive" years should not be awarded $10 million just because the surgeon made an innocent honest mistake, regardless of how egregious the consequences were. And how much is "pain and suffering" worth? There has to be a limit. Is $1 million not high enough?

I am not willing to give up an arm, a leg, nor years off my life for a million dollars, and I know that I am not alone. Let alone to not be given a choice.

Basing the value of my life by past earnings is ridiculous too. The damage done eliminates countless paths that one might take to earn more.

While I am not 100% opposed to tort reform, I am not behind it.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

The problem is that the doctors don't pay if they lose. Their malpractice insurance company does. Many of these outrageously high settlements are reduced on appeal, but it still costs a fortune, and that cost is passed on to us in our insurance premiums. People know that it costs a lot of money to defend a malpractice suit and they file nuisance suits that have no merit, because they stand a good chance of getting a nice out of court settlement. One of the biggest costs of healthcare is in the malpractice insurance premiums that doctors pass along to their patients. Then you have the additional costs of unnecessary tests that doctors have to perform "just in case," so they have a better defense if one of these nuisance suits is filed against them.

I was a juror on a malpractice suit were the admitting intern misdiagnosed the x-rays and thought the patient had pneumonia, and he ordered that diahhretics be administered. Less than 6 hours later the attending physician reported to work and made the correct diagnosis of cardiopulmonary adema. This is a common mistake because it is very difficult to tell the difference between fluid and blood in the lungs on an x-ray. The doctor ordered the correct treatment and the patient was recovering for 3 days, before his heart just gave out and he died.

The family sued the attending physician for $1,000,000 even though he did everything right! We found the doctor not liable but we still had to convince 5 of the 12 jurors in deliberations to change their vote because they felt sorry for the family and thought they should get "something." They didn't care whether the doctor was guilty or not. They knew the insurance company would be paying for it and "they could afford it." It didn't matter to them that the patient was very obese, didn't exercise and was a long-term heavy smoker.

I've seen first hand how the legal system is abused and how it affects the cost of healthcare and insurance.

I don't know how you would go about setting "fair" limits, but something needs to change there.

Your example is of a case that awarded $0, and that is somehow your evidence for tort reform?

NOW you are using the Constitution to defend your argument? (just kidding!)

Imperfect? Yes. Some excellent points? Absolutely.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

The poor are not "entitled" to drive the nicest cars, live in the biggest houses or receive the best healthcare; the things that the wealthy can afford. They are entitled to receive adequate life-saving care. That is the problem with most liberals. They don't understand the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. The Constitution does not guarantee that everyone will make the same amount of money or be able to to afford the same amenities. Some people are just lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family or are blessed with above average intelligence or are willing to work harder to get ahead. Life isn't always 'fair.'

And that's why they would be able to afford private practice medical care, just like they afford private schools.

But The US Constitution guarantees life, and the pursuit of happiness. And medical care is often a flat-out requirement for those.

And, regardless of The US Constitution, medical care is absolutely one thing that our society should provide.

We group together to form societies because trying to make it alone is just plain s**ty, and we all benefit greatly from the group. Life and health should be first and foremost on our goal to be a strong society. Even ahead of defense.

All enemies, foreign, and domestic? Like illness? Injury?

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

Local, county and state government, not Federal government. These are the things that are supposed to be relegated to the States according to the Constitution.

Lol. You didn't specify, and then you eliminated the two you could think of. But....

The number of hungry children in The USA is almost non-existent, thanks to welfare. The average life expectancy is almost too high, as a result of offering medical care and financial assistance to the elderly.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

You have that backwards. They outperform because the student's parents pick the school. Parents who are willing to pay more for a private, often religious education are for more motivated to make sure that their children take their studies seriously and apply themselves in class. Because these parents tend to be more affluent they are more likely to be better self-disciplined and harder working and they instill those traits in their kids. They tend to have a more stable home life as well because money issues are the leading cause of marital stress.

And they can deny whoever they want.

I have no problem with private schooling. I am simply pointing out the incredible advantage of not have to serve everybody. And that is a huge reason why they "out-perform" public schools.

But their success does not change the success of our public schooling system, which has only recently been plagued by the bass-ackward "No Child Left Behind" policy.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

You are talking about a voucher system that would take the same amount of taxpayer money that is spent on the student in a public school and allow them to use that money toward a private school education. I'm in favor of that, but some parents still wouldn't be able to pay the difference, and it wouldn't make those parents better parents. Good parenting plays a huge roll in a students success, as does good teachers.

Yeah the voucher system would kill our education.

Big business favors the wealthy every time.

They would eventually leave the masses without education, just as all industries do.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

I agree with both of these statements as well. Everyone else receives "performance based" pay and teachers should be no different. I'm not sure what criteria you base that performance on, though. It can't be just grades as you have just pointed out, but somehow the teachers who get the most out of the same students should be rewarded.

It is tricky. And I disagree with the whole concept until some sort of breakthrough in how to implement it would work. I can't think of a way. Every idea comes with a glaring "outdoor mall" element to me.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

In the past we allowed students who weren't performing at grade level to be promoted anyway, and these same students are now the teachers. "No child left behind" was supposed to help the worst students improve academically. What has happened instead is that
tests have been made easier and teachers are "teaching to the test" so the quality of education overall has been eroded. I don't know how to fix that, but I do know it's broken.

I have an overall plan for education. But you will hate it.....

Fix the education spending.

The low income areas get the least funding per student. And the schools in areas where people could afford to pitch in more locally, get more of the state and federal money. And the low income areas tend to need so much more, just to provide a reasonable atmosphere for education.

I think that inner-city schools should have heavy police presence (in the area), and strong security.

The low income area schools get the least of the teachers, due to the lack of security, and they have the most students being crammed into the classroom.

I think we need to be able to provide US children with a secure learning environment before we can expect them to learn.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

You make a good point here. I don't know too many people who use Fed-ex to pay a bill or use UPS to mail a letter to their aunt. A lot of those people aren't using the USPS anymore, either. They pay online or have recurring bills automatically deducted from their account and use email and "unlimited free calling" to communicate with family.

I still think if the post office was completely privatized and run like other businesses (profit motive) it could at least break even.

Well sure, at the cost of service.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

You might have to limit deliveries to only Monday, Wednesday and Friday to improve efficiency, but it already takes 2-3 days for first class mail to get delivered, so I don't think that would be much of a sacrifice.

Two things....

1.) The US Postal Service is currently trying to cut days out of their schedule, but that costs jobs. I bet I know who you will blame for that.

Teasing, of course.

2.) There are still a whole lot of people who are being left behind by technology. And they will be far more dependent upon the post office than the rest of us, so there would be an adverse effect on those people.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

There is still a lot of waste and unnecessary costs in both private medicine and Medicare/medicaid and I think there are a lot of things we can do to lower costs without an individual mandate or socialized medicine. Maybe you are right, though. Maybe we are doomed to suffer the same fate as other countries who have socialized medicine and the lower quality of care that comes with it. But we still have the best health care in the world and I'm not quite ready to give up on it, yet.

Well, I don't know about the best in the world. I hear otherwise pretty frequently. But I think it is good, just in the process of an economic heart attack, with no real treatment currently being offered. (You like that one?)

You mean like agriculture and fuel? Should the government take over all food and energy production as well? Most of the countries that tried that (communism) have not fared so well and they have been moving toward a free market system for the last 20 years. Even China is more capitalist than communist now. Only Cuba and North Korea seem to be clinging to communism, and I'll bet they don't have an illegal immigration problem, either!

Didn't Capitalism die off in the 1930's?

Communism's only chance of success is if there is no outside competition. There currently is, so it is doomed too.

As is, we require a balance between the two base theories. Which is what we have had for as long as anybody on this site has been alive.

Sometimes the scale will tip out of balance one way, as with Jimmy Carter, and sometimes it will tip the other way, as with George W. Bush.

We just need to bring balance back each time, and we will do fine.

But the "back to the good old days" theory is crazy talk. It would bring the entire house of cards down, just to try and start over, and we have already figured out how that works.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

Exactly! That's why I think we need to take small steps to make it better. "Obamacare" will only make it worse.

Again, I am not a big fan of "Obamacare". But it is a step that would go a long way toward restoring the balance.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Maybe you can clarify. How do you replace something without repealing what you are replacing?

If it were to be replaced, it needs to be replaced in a single act with repeal.

We need to keep it in place until the replacement is ready. If we repeal it, as long as it took to get that measure passed, we will not replace it.

The chants of "repeal and replace" treat the two as separate items, and you know, as well as anybody, that when the masses get half of something, their fire burns out.

If we repeal it, without passing the replacement, then emotions will cool, and the system will go to the brink of total collapse before that fire returns.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

But how do you know that Obamacare is a strong patch? Because some democrats, who didn't read it before they passed it, told you it is? I haven't read it all, either, but I don know some of what is in it and much of what I know I don't like. I did just now download the entire bill form

Forgive me for this, as I am not happy that you are unemployed, and I hope for the best for you, but....

That's a big advantage, being off work. (I had that advantage not too long ago.) but I just don't have the time for that endeavor.

However, I have little interest in going over the whole thing. The basic system is what I find to be a patch.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

It's 1017 pages but the print is fairly large, the lines are short and it's double spaced. I think I can read 50 pages a day and get trough it in 20 days! Then I will be able to discuss it in detail. Won't that be fun!

And we aren't letting anybody die now!

Whew! That's all I can get through tonight. Page 8 will have to wait until Friday evening. How come there is no simple :( smiley in this forum!?

To be continued ...

Let this system continue, and it will crash. That is not a guess. It is inevitable, and it looks pretty close. And the result will definitely be hundreds, even thousands dying from a lack of basic health care.

Let's not. You can't say Ron Paul or his dingbat supporters are representative of mainstream conservatives. That's like saying Crocodile Dundee represents the typical Aussie. Ron Paul is an isolationist libertarian on the far fringe of the republican party. He no more represents republicans than Sen. Arlan Spector did before he switched to the democrat party.

There is one thing that everybody has to give to Ron Paul....

He is the only man who I have ever seen run for POTUS that I believe.

I have do doubt that he would maintain exactly what he says.

You check his record, and it will exactly reflect what he says he believes.

That being said, there would be no quicker way to turn The USA into a third world country than to elect Paul, and give him the Congress he would need to implement his plan.

But you would be a liar to think that he and most of his supporters, are not a significant part of the Republican base. Albeit, a very extreme share. But they are the part that I was referring to.

And you can figure out for yourself who wants to eliminate the unions. Not that they are flawless, but unionization is the very backbone of our working middle class, and as the unions have been getting broken down, so has our middle class.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

Republicans aren't looking to move backward; they want to move forward. I just heard a stat today that says 67% believe this country is headed in the wrong direction. Of course, they don't all blame democrats for that, but clearly what we have been doing since Obama took office either hasn't worked or hasn't been enough.

What we have been doing since Obama took over, is to endure the results of the economic crash.

But You know that the masses are generally extremely uninformed. So they just tend to not bother examining everything, but to look for instant gratification.

And then there is a whole other category that only examines enough to favor their side in an argument.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

$205,075 of the stimulus package money was spent to move a bush! Here is the story. These same bushes are sold at Home Depot for $15.99. For the same amount of money, we could have bought 1768 of these bushes and paid 1768 people $100 each to plant them! This is the kind of crap that voters are fed up with.

Both parties do this kind of stupid s***.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

Wait! Now you are blaming women and minorities for the unemployment situation? I'm sorry but that doesn't fly. We had near full employment for most of the 80s, 90s and 2000s. Blaming the previous (Bush) administration is one thing, but going back 40 years to blame the Kennedy and Johnson administrations is a bit of a stretch, don'tcha think?

We are not running for office here. Don't do the whole "you're attacking innocent **Insert group of American voters here**"

I am not "blaming" women and minorities. I am pointing out simple facts.

And when the quantity of work-expectant Americans rises so significantly, there is no doubt that the number of unemployed will rise.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

Good question. Women started entering the work force en masse during WWII to support the family while their husbands were off fighting the war. When the men returned, many women were able to quit their jobs, because you could still support a family on one income back them, but many others continued to work, even if it was only because they enjoyed it or liked having the extra money.

Since at least then, women have been counted the same way they are counted today. Only women who want to work and are seeking employment, but can't get it are counted. Housewives and "welfare moms" are not counted. Of course there are a lot more women in the labor force today because the modern economy (and society's refusal to live frugally and make sacrifices) along with the much higher percentage of single parent households have forced more women into the workforce.

What may be overlooked is that these working women stimulate the economy by generating income, which they spend to create increased demand for goods and services, so they create almost as many jobs as they "take." You can't make the argument that unemployment is higher now because women are taking jobs away from men. We didn't have an unemployment problem in 2005 and the number of women in the workforce is essentially unchanged from 7 years ago.

They went right back to the kitchen after WWII and trickled in until the 1980's.

And adding so many working people always provides some benefit. But the overall damage to the number of unemployed is blind to that fact. And women have been counted more, and more, since 1980's. Thus inflating the ratio of workers, to jobs.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

There is strong support that many of FDRs new deal policies actually extended the depression. You can go to Wikipedia and look up "New Deal," but here are just a couple of quotes:

I will admit that some of the things we did were absolutely necessary and some good things came out of the New Deal but it wasn't the Utopian society that they teach you it was in school. What really ended the great depression was World War II.

It wasn't that women were not allowed to work, so much, as they didn't have to or chose to stay at home and raise a family.

I do not deny that many of the programs hampered immediate growth.

But, as with any major change, there are immediate results, and then there are the long-term results. And the long-term results have been incredibly effective, playing a huge part in creating The USA that we enjoy today.

The Utopian society that absolutely did result, is what you long for now... the 1950's.

And again... When Republican policies are allowed to run their course, the result is complete meltdown, and when Democrats were allowed to run their course, we grew like The Incredible Hulk.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

It sure would (lower taxes would help with that, BTW) but Americans now have to live in the nicest homes, drive a new car every 2 years and you can't live without that big screen TV so you can watch your 300 cable or satellite channels, and who wants to give up going to a nice restaurant twice a week? We think we are making sacrifices when we go to the reduced priced matinee to see the latest movie. Real sacrifice would be waiting for it to come out on DVD and watching at home on your new big screen TV.

I will concede very little when it comes to taxes. The result of further lowering of taxes would be a complete default on our debt, and that would all-but shut down foreign trade, and it would be on par with The Great Depression.

All nations would be very wary of trade. Just a total mess.

But what I will concede is that a large portion of the 47% who currently pay no federal income tax need to be included, to some degree.

Unfortunately, I would not find myself able to lower anybody's taxes if I were able to make the call, with the current state of The USA.

I would refuse, until the debt were being paid off, and that would not be possible until those near the bottom, and those near the top got their taxes raised.

Originally Posted by TopekaRoy

Except for extending the middle class tax cuts, which was politically advantageous to them, I can think of little that democrats "hopped on board for" after they took control of the House and Senate in Nov. 1996. Maybe you can cite two or three examples. There is little polarization when the economy is strong, as it was for most of around 1984 to 2009. This country was very polarized during the Nixon (Watergate), and Carter (recession) administrations, but you probably don't remember that. I do. By the way, you never did tell me how old you are. Being young doesn't mean you are wrong or have any less insight, and I'm not asking to in any way attack your arguments. It would just give me a better idea of what you have gone through personally and where you are coming from.

Maybe that is the problem!

The problem is that Republicans refuse to even try to play as a team.

Democrats hopped on board with Bush, and now they get attacked by the right, for doing so.

"They voted for it!!!!"

And Republicans have been more hate-filled then ever before. You have the violent rhetoric of Ted Nugent, the "Nazi" calls of Beck and Limbaugh, and the constant "Commie/Marxist/Socialist" cries to go along with the birthers and ACORN haters.

But I am going to have to take a break now.... I need to get caught up on my KC Chiefs fighting now.....

If you make it back here before me, try to cut some more of the fat out of this. This is becoming real work.